Women’s Labor Market Status and Economic Development

Nidhiya Menon, Brandeis University

Yana van der Meulen Rodgers, Rutgers University

October 12, 2016

1

I. Introduction

Women’s economic empowerment can make the process of development more inclusive

through a number of channels. For example, improving educational attainment for women and

girls can strengthen the ability of household members to engage in productive activities and

improve the efficacy of the labor force, thereby bolstering the economy’s growth potential. At

the same time, structural changes that accompany the development process – as a result of

technological change, international competition, or policy liberalization – can substantially alter

the constraints that women face as they encounter new economic opportunities. The extent to

which these forces lead to greater gender equality or inequality influences the inclusiveness of

future growth.

Policy and scholarly discourse offer alternative interpretations of what it means to

improve women’s economic empowerment and move toward gender equality, with varying

degrees of emphasis on equality of opportunities and equality of outcomes. Equality of

opportunities is most often associated with formal, legal equality in access to education, health

services, and employment. It is also associated with equal chances for men and women to

participate in decision-making and to have a voice within and outside of the household. In

contrast, equality of outcomes commonly refers to gender parity in income, wealth, assets,

market-based work, and household work. The two concepts are closely related and mutually

reinforcing. Giving women greater opportunities can improve their economic outcomes, while

more equal outcomes can foster more balanced gender relations that in turn help to level the

playing field in terms of opportunities (Berik et al. 2009).

A wide range of interventions – from investments in public infrastructure and rural

banking reforms, to providing women with improved access to child care and business training –

2

can potentially create new opportunities for women, thus spurring their economic empowerment.

This chapter explores interventions that seek to strengthen women’s agency economically by

eliminating constraints they face and increasing their income. Structural barriers, social norms,

and institutionalized constraints can undermine women’s ability to participate in paid labor, as

well as their ability to participate in decision-making within and beyond the household. We

focus on the structural drivers and constraints associated with the transition of women from

unremunerated or low-paid production to higher-value work in three important domains:

entrepreneurship, agriculture, and wage employment. In the case of entrepreneurship this

transition is usually out of unpaid family work into viable small-scale businesses, in agriculture

the shift is often from subsistence farming to commercial farming, and in wage employment the

transition occurs from low-wage insecure work to well-paid jobs with long-term contracts.

Understanding the drivers behind these types of employment and the constraints that women face

can help to develop new policies that better support workers and their families, stimulate

employment generation in countries with rapid labor-force growth, and promote entrepreneurial

activities that spur innovation and progress. In the spirit of these important objectives, this

chapter examines best practices in reducing constraints in these domains in order to achieve

gender equality in outcomes.

Removing barriers and alleviating the constraints that women face can yield benefits at

multiple levels, within the household, in the labor market, and in the broader macroeconomy. In

the era of smart phones and smart cards, reducing gender inequality can be a ‘gender-smart’ way

to achieve economy-wide gains (Berik and Rodgers 2012). Just as addressing gender differences

in education and labor market outcomes can have macro-level impacts, the macroeconomy has

repercussions for gender equality. Hence the channels between gender equality and economic

3

development are complex; there could be both reverse causality and adverse effects. For

example, macroeconomic forces associated with economic growth, including greater global

competition from international trade and industrial restructuring from technological upgrades,

have the potential to aggravate gender inequalities that weaken women’s agency. In such a

context, the final part of this chapter explores the links between gender equality and economic

growth, considering both the direction of causality and whether the effects are harmful or

beneficial in terms of their implications for gender-equitable economic development.

II. Women’s Entrepreneurship

Around the globe, small-scale entrepreneurship provides an important vehicle for income

generation for women and men. People initiate microenterprises because they need flexibility in

their terms of employment, they have innovative ideas that warrant starting a new business, or

they seek upward mobility in the labor market. Other people, often those at the lower end of the

income scale, have little choice but to engage in self-employment when paid employment

opportunities are scarce. A substantial proportion of the poor around the world rely on self-

employment as a source of income as they navigate a host of constraints that include a lack of

affordable loans from formal sources, restricted access to reliable savings accounts, few formal

sources of insurance, insecure land rights, and insufficient access to public infrastructure such as

piped water and electricity. More broadly, diversification of economic activities and the growth

of non-farm self-employment endeavors serve not only as a means of survival for the very poor

but also contribute to reducing poverty (Lanjouw and Murgai 2009).

An attractive feature of self-employment is that it allows parents, especially mothers, to

combine labor market participation with child care responsibilities. Self-employment can be

particularly beneficial in regions with limited paid-employment opportunities for women due to

4

labor markets characterized by discrimination, imperfect information, or insufficient labor

demand.1 In these contexts, employment in home-based enterprises can reduce women’s

vulnerability, providing them with earnings potential and improving their social security. When

women do face constraints in finding sufficient opportunities for wage employment as is the case

in many conservative developing countries, they may be willing to borrow in order to start their

own small business. Even though such household businesses tend to be small, they employ a

large share of the labor force in developing countries.

Self-employment rates vary across countries at different stages of development and with

different institutional structures. Cross-country evidence in Rodgers and Menon (2013) indicates

that self-employment shares in total employment are generally very high in low-income

economies, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. Moreover, in all low-income countries but one

(Kyrgyzstan), self-employment shares are noticeably higher for women than they are for men.

On average in low-income economies, 86 percent of women are self-employed compared to 79

percent of men. The highest rates of self-employment are found in Sierra Leone and Tanzania

where 96 percent of women are engaged in agricultural self-employment. Moreover, in Nepal,

about three quarters of working women have no cash earnings at all. The dominance of unpaid

agricultural self-employment and the limited opportunities for compensated labor have been

associated with Nepal’s persistent problems of high poverty rates and income inequality. This

conclusion regarding a greater incidence of self-employment among women compared to men

also holds for lower-middle-income economies, but the overall importance of self-employment

as a source of employment declines markedly in this group. On average, 52 percent of women

and 46 percent of men in lower-middle-income economies are self-employed (Rodgers and

Menon 2013).

5

Self-employment shares are substantially lower in upper-middle-income economies and

high income economies, and men demonstrate a greater incidence of self-employment compared

to women in these countries. Not only does the importance of self-employment decline with

overall income levels across countries, but the dominant form of self-employment also varies

with the overall level of economic development. In particular, countries at the beginning stages

of their structural transformation are characterized by “survivalist” self-employment activities

rooted in the traditional sector, while countries further along the development ladder have

created the right conditions for “opportunity-driven” entrepreneurship in the modern sector

(Gries and Naudé 2010).

Hence even within the population of self-employed workers, there are marked variations

along gender lines. In contrast to higher-income countries, proportionately more women than

men are self-employed in lower-income countries with the implication that women have

relatively less job security and more unstable incomes. Moreover, in lower-income countries,

self-employment commonly takes the form of household enterprise work, and women-owned

household enterprises, for specific reasons, are often smaller in scale than those owned by men.

Strategies to promote women’s entrepreneurship

A growing body of evidence indicates that an effective policy intervention in promoting

self-employment is improving women’s access to capital through loans and grants, often

mediated via microfinance initiatives, rural banking reforms, and cash transfer programs. Such

initiatives target individuals who have difficulty obtaining conventional loans through

commercial banks. Women in particular have faced such difficulties due to their lack of

collateral, a problem that is exacerbated by weak or nonexistent property rights for women in

many developing countries. Without access to formal loans, low-income individuals have often

6

had to rely on informal sector money lenders and other expensive sources of credit. By offering a

variety of pecuniary resources and financial services to the poor, both microfinance and rural

banks have helped to lower poverty in a number of countries (Besley and Burgess 2003).

Previous research suggests that the targeted provision of small-scale loans through

microfinance initiatives can support and incentivize women’s labor market activities and

promote economic welfare. As the first microfinance program of its kind, Bangladesh’s Grameen

Bank has been the subject of numerous studies that have generally found positive results. For

example, Pitt and Khandker (1998) notes that credit given to women participants through the

Grameen Bank had a strong positive effect on household consumption and women’s labor

supply. Other research has shown that credit and non-credit services made available by

participation in Grameen programs has contributed to positive profits from self-employment and

to improvements in women’s bargaining positions within the home in Bangladesh, and that the

presence of village-level microfinance has boosted asset growth and occupational mobility in

Thailand.2

Such success has in turn contributed to the proliferation of microfinance initiatives across

countries and regions throughout the world. This movement has provided approximately 65

million low-income individuals around the globe with access to small loans without collateral

and with opportunities to acquire assets and purchase insurance.3 This movement has also

demonstrated the extent of the unmet need for credit among poor women and men and the

potential for commercial banks to play a bigger role by improving access of marginalized

individuals to formal credit. Microfinance, in turn, has contributed to a substantial increase in

self-employment activities worldwide.

7

Not all previous research, however, has viewed microfinance favorably. Some have

argued that because most microfinance schemes are not public programs, their proliferation has

shifted the burden of poverty reduction away from governments to the poor themselves.

Moreover, the small loans provided by microfinance programs can act like a trap that prevents

women entrepreneurs from raising their income levels beyond a poverty threshold. Another

gender-related argument is that in some cases, husbands have taken control of the borrowed

funds and the loans have contributed to increased domestic violence. Critics also argue that

microfinance has become a magnet for large financial-sector firms who view the relatively high

interest rates as profitable. This development can signal hardship for the poor and subvert the

intended goal of poverty reduction.4

Another form of improving women’s access to financial capital is reforms that expand

the reach of commercial banks to locations with thin or nonexistent financial markets. An

important example in this area is India’s rural social banking program which focused primarily

on opening new bank branches in previously unbanked rural locations. Evidence in Menon and

Rodgers (2011) indicates that India’s rural banking reform program increased the likelihood of

women engaging in gainful self-employment beyond unpaid family work while having little

effect on men’s self-employment work as own-account workers. A likely explanation is that

women have restricted access to formal employment in developing countries such as India, so

when a household obtains a loan, it is rational for women to become self-employed and to earn a

livelihood from their own trade or home-based businesses.

Women have also gained access to financial capital through various types of conditional

cash transfer (CCT) and other types of cash grant programs. CCT’s are prevalent across

developing regions and are used as a poverty reduction tool in which cash disbursements are

8

made conditional on households undertaking certain actions, usually related to children’s school

enrollment and visits to healthcare providers for checkups and vaccinations. Some programs

have included support for women’s education, training, and employment. An example is Chile’s

Solidario program, and evidence in Scarlato et al. (2016) indicates that this program had a

positive effect women’s self-employment and their wage-employment, but only after the

program’s conditions had been satisfied. Positive effects were also found by Aker et al. (2011) in

the case of an unconditional cash transfer program in Niger in which women received the

disbursements through mobile telephones. The ease of transferring the cash and the privacy that

women experienced in receiving the cash contributed to an increase in cash crop production for

women farmers.

Despite the appeal of microfinance and other programs providing women with greater

access to financial capital, not all studies have been able to identify impacts on measures of

women’s empowerment and entrepreneurship. For example, de Mel et al. (2008) demonstrated

that small grants in the form of cash or in-kind support given to a randomly-selected group of

small businesses in Sri Lanka resulted in high rates of return for men, on the order of about 5

percent per month, while women-owned microenterprises had rates of return that were

essentially zero. Moreover, group-lending programs for women in Northeast Thailand examined

in Coleman (1999) had no statistically significant impact on indicators of economic activity that

included production, sales, and time spent working. Furthermore, Kevane and Wydick (2001)

showed that women entrepreneurs who borrowed from microenterprise lending institutions in

Guatemala did not create new employment with their businesses as compared to other

entrepreneurs. More recent randomized control trials have similarly found increased borrowing

activity among women without identifiable impacts on their empowerment or entrepreneurial

9

activities in Morocco (Crépon et al. 2015), India (Banerjee et al. 2015), and Ethiopia (Tarozzi et

al. 2015).

A growing number of studies on microenterprises and finance in developing countries

find that simply providing greater access to capital is not sufficient to help microenterprises

grow. Rather, additional policies that improve business training, offer business-development

services, and assist in the shift toward more profitable activities are more effective in

strengthening the impact of credit on such work. A comprehensive reviews of this research in

Buvinić and Furst-Nichols (2016) indicate that on balance, modest cash transfers in isolation,

whether such transfers take the form of loans or grants, are less effective in helping very small

subsistence-level enterprises owned by women to grow than they are in enhancing the

performance of women-owned businesses that are already established and operating at scale.

What works for transforming the livelihoods of low-income women business owners is capital

bundled with training and financial services.

Social norms related to gender can limit the relative responsiveness of women’s

entrepreneurship; in particular, patriarchal and traditional cultural values may outweigh the

positive impact of loans, grants and training programs that target women. For example, loans and

grants by themselves may have a limited “flypaper effect” such that the transfer does not stick to

the objective for which it was provided. Evidence on the existence of this flypaper effect has

been found in the case of Ghana, where only capital in the form of in-kind grants caused a

growth in profits for women while cash did not (Fafchamps et al. 2014); and in Bangladesh,

where women retained control over capital transfers in the form of livestock but not over new

investments generated by the income earned from these transfers (Roy et al. 2015). The reasons

for this flypaper effect include a lack of self-control related to high discount rates associated with

10

holding liquid assets, as well as external pressure, usually from husbands and other family

members, to take control over the assets.

These constraints are not insurmountable and may be tackled with relatively low-cost

modifications to program design. Examples of such adjustments include changing the mode of

capital transfers so that women receive them in-kind or through their own mobile phones, setting

up secure savings accounts to which other family members have restricted access, and instituting

commitment savings programs in which withdrawals can only be made once a certain savings

goal is reached so as to curtail diversions of business income towards personal consumption

(Buvinić and Furst-Nichols 2016).

III. Gender and Agriculture

Women’s labor force participation rates in agriculture have risen in recent decades and

agricultural export markets in developing countries have seen a feminization of foreign exchange

earnings. Yet sizable gaps remain in three key domains defining the gender division of labor in

the rural landscape: between the market and non-market economies, within the market economy,

and within the non-market economy. Salient features that arise from these domains are women’s

relatively greater burdens of unpaid housework and caring labor, agricultural productivity gaps

that arise not from lower female efficiency but from inequitable access to land and to agricultural

inputs, and market economies characterized by relatively lower proportions of women in high-

paying full-time jobs. These inefficiencies have negative repercussions for agricultural output

and sustained economic progress.

In terms of characterizing time-use, women generally work longer hours than men and

they perform more unpaid housework than men (Berniell and Sánchez-Páramo 2011). Moreover,

men tend to experience a fairly stable time use profile over their lifetimes, whereas women

11

experience more variable paid and unpaid work-loads as family structures change. Differences

between men and women are largest during the prime child-bearing and child-rearing ages.

Women’s relatively heavier unpaid work-loads can serve as a major constraint in their labor

force participation, as evidenced in Figure 1, which shows the male-female difference in labor

force participation rates by age cohorts across regions in 1990 and 2013. Not only are men’s

labor force participation rates higher than those of women across regions, but the gender gaps in

labor force participation are usually the biggest when women’s reproductive work demands are

the greatest (ages 25-34 and 35-54) while the gaps are smaller in the younger and older cohorts.

The figure also indicates that the gender gap in labor force participation rates has decreased over

time in most regions and age groups.

Even when women work, a large part of their time is spent in uncompensated labor. Poor

infrastructure plays a major role in determining women’s time in unremunerated work. For

example, in Burkina Faso, various organizations have started initiatives to construct wells,

supply carts to villages for hauling wood, build fuel-efficient ovens, and introduce hullers and

grain mills to convert grain into flour. Evidence in Kompaoré et al. (2007) suggests that the

introduction of these new technologies reduced women’s workloads and helped them to use their

freed-up time to create new businesses. Absence of infrastructure, especially in rural areas, is an

important determinant of the relatively high burden of domestic housework borne by women.

Another salient feature of the agricultural sector is substantial gender differentials in

agricultural productivity that have been linked to inequitable access to agricultural inputs and to

women’s relatively insecure land rights. The main reason for the gender gap in agricultural

productivity is not that women are less efficient cultivators; rather, households allocate land,

labor and fertilizer inefficiently. For example, the gender gap in agricultural productivity is

12

estimated to be $100 million in Malawi, $105 million in Tanzania, and $67 million in Uganda

per year (UN Women et al. 2015). These gaps are explained mostly by women’s limited access

to inputs and support services. Among the imbalances, gender differences in the use of

implements and machinery explain 18 percent of the gender gap in Malawi, 8 percent in

Tanzania, and 9 percent in Uganda. These gaps in agricultural productivity are large, and the

potential economic gains from eliminating them may translate into significant reductions in

poverty and improvements in nutritional outcomes. UN Women et al. (2015) estimates that as

many as 238,000 people in Malawi, 80,000 people in Tanzania, and 119,000 people in Uganda

could be lifted out of poverty by the closing of the total gender gap in agricultural productivity

within each country.

Studies across developing regions have documented that once access to inputs is taken

into account, women are as technically efficient as men. With respect to land, across developing

regions, women own and control substantially less land than men (FAO 2016). The implications

of these gender inequities in land holdings for agricultural investments and output are enormous

given that, among other things, insecure land tenure reduces the incentive of farmers to invest in

their land. For example, in rural Ghana, Goldstein and Udry (2008) found that women have

relatively less social and political power in villages, are less likely to have secure land rights, and

consequently, are less likely to invest in improving land fertility. The authors attribute women’s

substantially lower profits per hectare compared to men primarily to women’s insecure land

tenure and the heightened risk that women face of having their land expropriated. Similar results

were found for Burkina Faso where plots controlled by women were farmed less intensively than

similar plots planted with the same crop but controlled by men within the same household.

13

Results indicate that reallocating factors of production in a more efficient manner could increase

output by 6 percent (Udry 1996).

Another salient feature of the gendered division of labor in agriculture is men’s relatively

greater participation in rural wage employment and better access to high-paying secure jobs

compared to women. For example, data in SOFA and Doss (2011) indicate that in Guatemala,

just 8 percent of women hold wage jobs in the rural labor market compared to 31 percent of men,

and this gap is of a comparable size in Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Panama. Moreover, men are

more likely to have a full-time contract rather than a part-time contract. For example, in Nepal,

54 percent of male wage laborers in the rural sector have full-time contracts (with the remainder

holding part-time contracts), compare to just 28 percent of female wage laborers. Women are

also over-represented in seasonal jobs instead of annual jobs; this imposes a penalty on women

since seasonal jobs tend to be lower paid and exclude benefits (SOFA and Doss 2011).

Market-oriented economic reforms and trade liberalization policies in developing regions

have been accompanied by strong growth in the production of cash crops along with increasing

segmentation and gender segregation of the agricultural labor force. Female participation in the

cultivation and sale of cash crops is particularly important given the significant positive welfare

benefits this type of farming brings. Across developing regions, integration into world markets

has brought new job opportunities for rural women in high-value agricultural export goods such

as cut flowers, fruits, and vegetables (Lastarria-Cornhiel 2006). The horticultural export sector is

not the only area where women have seen new paid employment opportunities; livestock

keeping, fisheries, and aquaculture have also become important drivers of job creation for

women (SOFA and Doss 2011).

Strategies to promote women’s improved agency in agriculture

14

The gender gaps in labor inputs and agricultural productivity can have sizable

implications. A growing body of literature shows that the marginalization of women’s labor

impedes poverty reduction efforts, dampens productivity, and reduces economic growth (DFID

et al. 2013). In agricultural economies, gender balance in access to land, technology, and

agricultural inputs holds the key to increasing productivity in food production. Not only is

gender inequality economically inefficient, the measurable negative consequences of its presence

provide a rationale for eliminating the barriers that prevent women from having full access to

agricultural resources and productive paid employment.

In this context, dismantling a structure of constraints is crucial for reducing women’s

work burdens, raising their labor returns, facilitating meaningful income generation options, and

eliminating barriers that curtail women’s participation in market activities. The means toward

these ends include the development of infrastructure that reduces women’s time in unpaid work,

initiatives that promote gender-aware agricultural extension services and improved access to

information, and meaningful reforms of land laws and property rights.

With regards to infrastructure development, in a study of time use by gender in Tanzania,

Fontana and Natali (2008) find that planners and policy makers do not adequately recognize the

role of improving infrastructure in transforming the market economy to work more effectively.

Policies that would save (unremunerated) time for women include infrastructure improvement in

the water sector, electrification, road construction, better transportation options and sanitation

services. These needs are especially stark in rural areas.

A critical intervention in the agricultural sector is the formalization of women’s land

ownership and property rights. When female farmers have more formal control over land their

productivity increases. Land rights ought to be guaranteed in such a way that women can

15

bequeath or use their land as collateral in an enforceable manner. This objective can be achieved

through improved documentation, stronger communal rights, constitutional revisions to

inheritance rights, and land titling programs. A number of countries have revised their land

inheritance rights in recent years to guarantee equal inheritance of land to sons and daughters and

to ensure joint land ownership between husband and wives. A case in point is Nepal, which had

several constitutional amendments in the 2000 that improved women’s land access and resulted

in an increase in women’s economic empowerment (Mishra and Sam 2016).

A growing number of governments have implemented large-scale land titling programs,

with results indicating that joint titling of land for married couples serves as an effective way for

women to gain legal land rights. Mandatory joint titling in particular raises the likelihood of

women gaining secure land rights, with voluntary joint titling somewhat less effective in

providing large proportions of women with secure rights especially in countries with strong

patriarchal social norms. For example, Menon et al. (2016) found that following Vietnam’s

large-scale land-law reform in 1993, there was an increase in women’s ownership of land, and

land-use rights held exclusively by women or jointly by couples resulted in several beneficial

effects including increased household expenditures, greater self-employment for women, and

lower household vulnerability to poverty. As a second example of a successful large-scale titling

program, Rwanda’s Land Tenure Regularization (LTR) program resulted in greater land tenure

security and large positive effects on agricultural investment, especially in female-headed

households (Ali et al. 2014). The program clarified land rights, reduced tribal conflicts, and

reduced gender discrimination in land access, each of which contributed to increased land access

for married women and improved documentation of inheritance rights.

IV. Wage Employment

16

Gender differences in wage employment around the world typically encompass a number

of areas including labor force participation rates, wage differentials, working conditions, and

segregation by occupation and industry. In terms of labor force participation, the relationship

between economic development and women’s rates of participation exhibits a fairly predictable

and well-documented relationship. In low-income countries that still have relatively large

agricultural sectors and an emphasis on household farm production, the female labor force

participation rate is high. In such economies, the distinction between paid work and subsistence

farm production is blurred, artificially inflating the number of women who are considered

economically active. As countries industrialize, female labor force participation rates decline as

the household farm model becomes less common and more women engage exclusively in non-

market activities such as child care and housework. In more advanced economies, participation

rates rise again as women combine working in the labor market with raising a family. This trend

in women’s labor force participation rates as countries industrialize generates a U-shaped

function that fits time-series and cross-sectional data for a number of countries at different stages

of development (Mammen and Paxson 2000).

Having a job does not always imply receipt of wages. Estimates indicate that there are

wide variations in nonwage work by gender and region of the world, where self-employment and

farming constitute the major components of nonwage work (World Bank 2012). These

variations are clear from Figure 2, which shows that while over 80 percent of women work in

nonwage jobs in Sub-Saharan Africa, fewer than 20 percent of women are similarly engaged in

Europe and Central Asia. Wage employment for women is highest in Europe and Central Asia

(where it slightly exceeds rates for men) and Latin America and the Caribbean (where it is on par

with men) and lowest in the Middle East and North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa. In the

17

Middle East and North Africa, the difference between men and women in terms of wage

employment is about 35 percent, while this differential is close to 20 percent in Sub-Saharan

Africa.

Moreover, structural transformation that accompanies development implies that market

participation rates increase among women, yet women tend to devote a larger share of time than

men to activities that are not directly remunerated. This pattern is evident from time use surveys

in the four countries depicted in Figure 3. The three categories of time use include income-

generating activities (time spent in wage or salaried work, farming, own-account work, self-

employment with hired labor, and unpaid family labor in home-based enterprises); investment

(time spent in education, health care, and job search); and other activities (child care or

housework). Across India, Guatemala, Spain and the United States, markedly more women than

men are engaged in work that is classified outside the system of national accounts (home-based

and care work). Across all four countries, men are more likely to be engaged in income-

generating and investment activities, especially in the developing nations of India and

Guatemala.

Even when women engage in paid work, they earn less than men on average. Gender

differences in wages are an international phenomenon, and the male advantage in wages often

persists over time. Gender wage gaps at the economy-wide level tend to be smaller than wage

ratios in the manufacturing sector alone, a common pattern evident internationally that largely

reflects intense pressures in global manufacturing markets to reduce labor costs, with

disproportionate downward pressure on women’s wages. Gender wage gaps for full-time

workers tend to be smaller than overall wage gaps, a pattern that reflects women’s relatively

greater representation among those employed part-time.

18

A variety of decomposition techniques have been used to explain these gender wage

gaps. A fairly standard approach is to decompose the gender wage gap in individual years into a

portion explained by differences in observed skill characteristics, and a residual portion

commonly attributed to wage discrimination by gender.5 This residual portion is surprisingly

large across industrialized and developing countries. Several studies have used more elaborate

decomposition techniques that exploit differences over time or across countries in order to

separate characteristics related to the economy’s overall wage structure and returns to skill -

which have little to do with discrimination - from the residual gap (Juhn et al. 1993; Yun 2009).

These procedures do not drive the unexplained gender-specific component to zero, suggesting

that pay differentials based on unobservable characteristics persist in the labor market.

Global evidence on trends in gender wage gaps is mixed. Some evidence indicates that

gender wage gaps have been closing, in part due to narrowing educational gaps.6 For a number of

developing countries including several in Asia, the discriminatory portion of gender wage gaps

has increased. Competition from international trade appears to play a pivotal role in increasing

wage discrimination against female workers in some countries, an argument that is supported

with empirical evidence for South Korea, Taiwan, and India (Berik et al. 2004, Menon and

Rodgers 2009). These results are contextualized in a framework in which employers pay their

female workers relatively low wages which contributes to a total wage bill that is less than the

wage bill of non-discriminatory employers. Competitive forces drive out non-discriminatory

employers from the market, leading to the perverse consequence of rising labor market

discrimination as economies liberalize trade in sectors in which women workers have low

bargaining power and are segregated in certain occupations.

19

Gender differences in occupational distributions can play a major role in explaining

gender earnings gaps; if women are concentrated in relatively low-paying occupations or if pay

structures within occupations are inequitable across gender, then women have lower average

earnings than men. With economic development, the distribution of workers across occupations

generally changes markedly, with a pronounced shift out of production work into professional

and service occupations. This shift reflects people who switch jobs as well as (and more

commonly) individuals who move into and out of the labor force. However, as shown in Figure

4, the gender distribution of workers across occupations is still noticeably different and

occupational segregation has remained a persistent facet of labor markets in developing and

developed economies. The figure shows that men are over-represented among skilled agriculture

and fishery jobs and skilled craft and trade workers, while women tend to be clustered in clerical

jobs and also have a relatively strong presence among service and sales workers and among low-

skilled production workers. More importantly, the high-paying legislative and managerial posts

are male-dominated across most countries. This occupational segregation is quite similar across

developed and developing regions. Women’s low representation in the more skilled and higher-

status occupations comes at a cost because women possess a distinct set of skills, work styles,

and attitudes that can potentially affect productivity at all levels.

Further, recent evidence indicates that the labor market is becoming more “polarized” in

the developing world due to the increasing role of technological change (World Bank 2015).

That is, the share of employment in both high-paying high-skilled jobs and low-paying low-

skilled jobs is increasing, while the shares in mid-level jobs are decreasing. While this

polarization may be beneficial globally in terms of increasing overall productivity, individuals

with few skills and limited access to technology are likely to suffer disproportionately (World

20

Bank 2015). Women are most likely to fall in this group, both in developed and developing

countries.

Increased openness to trade and foreign direct investment in many countries has given

women greater access to employment in export-oriented labor-intensive manufacturing.

However, women may not benefit on net from these new paid employment opportunities if their

employment gains have been accompanied by precarious working conditions and an

informalization of work in which jobs lack basic legal and social protections and are not subject

to formal economic regulations. Pressure from international markets to keep production costs

low may induce firms to offer increasingly insecure jobs that are temporary, casual, and

flexible.7 For example, Bhaumik (2003) finds that following India’s sweeping trade liberalization

in the early nineties, the share of the workforce classified as casual rose relatively more for

women workers than men in both rural and urban areas.

Across countries, the casualization of the workforce can be partly explained by the

growing tendency of final-goods producers to subcontract smaller-scale, home-based operations

(Carr et al. 2000). Home-based workers are predominantly women who work for lower pay

(often on a piece-rate basis), receive few (if any) fringe benefits, pay their own utility costs, and

work long hours. In view of their informal status, most home-based workers remain uncovered

by labor regulations that are expensive and impose costs on producers. They are predominantly

new labor-market entrants, women who have lost their formal-sector jobs, or women who need

to combine paid work with child care obligations.

Moreover, a large body of evidence across sources from academia, the media,

multinational organizations and non-governmental organizations has documented poor working

conditions, worker abuses, lack of union rights and discrimination by gender in developing

21

countries in the post-1980 period.8 Consider Bangladesh - which ranked as the lowest cost

producer of garments in a recent survey of 38 countries - in 2006, only 11 per cent of the 190

garment factories surveyed by Bangladesh’s Centre for Policy Dialogue were “highly compliant”

with national labor laws, where compliance was measured by a multi-dimensional indicator. This

poor compliance outcome in Bangladeshi garment factories was determined to be the product of

pressure from brand-name buyers, who are often the principal mechanism of enforcement.

Despite these drawbacks, some researchers have argued that jobs in the export sector offer better

pay as compared to many other alternatives for women (Kabeer 2004).

Strategies to promote women’s agency through wage employment

Improving the pecuniary returns that women receive for their jobs in the form of higher

wages, greater job security, and improved terms of employment has direct bearing on their

employment decisions. Policy measures to achieve these goals are most commonly embedded in

national labor standards that cover formal sector workers. To eliminate discrimination in

employment and pay against women, most countries have adopted policies that promote equal

treatment in the workplace. In particular, “equal pay for equal work” requires employers to

provide equal remuneration for workers performing the same job with equal efficiency,

regardless of gender. Moreover, governments have tackled occupational segregation through

equal opportunity provisions that prohibit sex-based discrimination in hiring, training,

promotion, and firing. Enforcing anti-discrimination measures will provide women with more

rewarding career opportunities, and it will also promote essential workforce training that meet

growth objectives. Moreover, such measures will aid in eliminating male-female differences in

returns to observable characteristics that work against improvements in education and experience

22

that women have achieved. Designing and implementing policies of this nature will thus serve to

sustain and improve women’s labor force participation.

Measures such as safe workplace conditions, overtime pay and paid benefits, although

potentially costly to implement, promote lower turnover rates, improve well-being for workers,

and contribute to extended firm-specific tenure. These measures need to be provided to a broader

range of workers by removing exemptions, promoting awareness of benefit availability, and

strengthening enforcement efforts. With this pressure and the negative consequences of media

exposure in the case of poor working conditions, corporations are paying more attention to labor

standards in the countries where they produce or buy their products. Most major retailers and

manufacturers now have their own compliance programs, with each program establishing a set of

guidelines under which a factory must operate. Programs are administered by company-

employed inspectors or by independent audit companies. The prevalence of these codes of

conduct and firms’ efforts to enforce them in the factories from which they source may go a long

way towards improving working conditions and towards reducing the incidence of forced labor

in textiles and clothing. Even if consumer-led corporate codes of conduct are proliferating,

relying on companies to self-regulate compliance is insufficient, especially in light of strong

consumer demand for low-cost clothing, the lack of agreement among corporations and

monitoring groups over a common set of labor standards, and the large number of factories and

subcontractors that remain outside the scope of private monitoring efforts. Rather than codes of

conduct, efforts to improve working conditions ought to focus on government enforcement and

the strengthening of women’s labor rights through collective bargaining.

Crucial to bolstering women’s progress toward equality in the formal sector, maternity

leave benefits allow women to keep their position with a particular employer while they take

23

time off to care for a newborn.9 In terms of labor market impacts, studies on maternity and

parental leaves have generally found that these policies have a positive impact on women’s

employment, although these impacts are not always statistically significant. This positive

employment effect is interpreted as an indication that women value the financial benefits of paid

leave and the opportunity to return to their current employers after childbirth. Previous studies

have generally found maternity benefits to have a negative wage effect reflecting variations in

such factors as mandated versus voluntary provision by firms, financing by national insurance,

maternity leave duration, and the wage compensation rate. If public funding covers beneficiary

payments, then wages will not decline as much if at all. In addition to supporting women's efforts

to remain and advance in the labor market, maternity benefits can contribute to the health of an

infant by allowing women in the labor force to spend more time at home following child birth.10

In addition, public support of out-of-home child care services helps to relieve the time

and budgetary constraints that women experience. Public support of child care also helps women

to compete on a relatively more level playing field in the labor market, given that women’s

greater work burdens at home make it more difficult for them to maintain labor force attachment

levels equal to those of men. Public support for early education programs also benefits those

children who otherwise would receive inferior-quality care from alternative providers, as well as

children who otherwise might have to accompany their mothers to work, possibly in unhealthy

environments. For example, Attanasio et al. (2013) find that community nurseries in Columbia,

which made it easier for mothers to be employed, increased child height (a long term measure of

child development). Public support of child care services also promotes higher levels of

educational attainment among older children, especially girls, who, in the absence of which, may

be withdrawn from school to care for younger siblings.

24

Depending on the types of activities in which women choose to engage, public support of

vocational training can be useful in preparing women for better-paying jobs. For instance,

Attanasio et al. (2011) find that a training program in Columbia was successful in increasing

women’s work and earnings. This publicly-funded program targeted both young men and

women ages 18 to 25 and coupled classroom training in administrative and hands-on occupations

with on-the-job training for three months. The trainees received a stipend for attending the

program, with individuals having child care responsibilities receiving a slightly larger sum.

Results indicate that women in the program earned about 20 percent more and had a 0.07 higher

probability of being gainfully employed, particularly in formal sector jobs. Other studies

targeting women in developing countries have found that when both training and cash grants are

provided, cash grants generally have little effect on outcomes such as profitability mainly

because cash is fungible. Training however does have a significant effect, but this effect may not

be long-lasting (de Mel et al. 2014, Fafchamps et al. 2014).

Closely related is the need for training programs built around women’s labor market

intermittency due to child care, to help promote their employability upon re-entry into the

workforce. Women may also face more barriers than men when they first enter the labor market,

thus providing a rationale for policies that facilitate the transition of women from school to their

first job. Finally, to better reach women in the informal sector and in remote areas, specially-

designed training programs, such as those that are community-based or geographically mobile,

can provide training opportunities to women who otherwise remain isolated from standard

education and training initiatives. As Glewwe and Kremer (2006) note, most of the curricula in

schools in developing countries are tailored to the elite, which means that most individuals –

25

especially girls and women – gain very little from schooling. Gains would be limited even if

their enrollment rates were to increase.

Gender-sensitive policies to increase educational attainment and promote skill

development for women and girls help to meet current economic needs and also build the

capacity of the labor force to satisfy future demands. For example, cross-country evidence in

Islam and Amin (2016) indicates that developing countries that have relatively higher school

enrollment rates at the primary, secondary, and tertiary levels also have a higher proportion of

women among the top management positions in corporate boards. Not only do these higher

enrollment rates mean a greater supply of qualified women to attain management positions in

private firms, they also help to change deeply entrenched social norms about gender roles in

school and in the labor market. Moreover, relevant polices focus on identifying and tackling

gender norms that lead to the clustering of girls in what are considered appropriate fields. This

clustering in turn constrains their employability. Such policies also include initiating mentoring

programs in which women who have successfully broken the glass ceiling serve as mentors to

younger women in the labor market. Promoting skills development also includes improving the

quality of education.

Although many developing countries have increased enrollment – especially in primary

schools – there are still substantial disparities by gender. For example, UNESCO (2002) cites

that around 56 percent of the 113 million school-age children who are not enrolled in school are

girls. Further, in poor countries, while gross enrollment in primary school is about 107 percent

for boys, it is lower at 98 percent for girls. This gap is even wider in secondary school with 60

percent enrollment for boys and only 47 percent enrollment for girls (Glewwe and Kremer

2006). Further, the quality of education in these countries is sub-standard and in general,

26

primary and secondary school students in many developing countries learn far less than their

direct comparison group in developed countries (Glewwe and Kremer 2006). Combined with

their relatively low enrollment rates, girls in less developed countries are at a significant

disadvantage when it comes to both the quantity and quality of schooling.

V. Gender Equality and Economic Development

A better understanding of the linkages between gender inequality and economic

development will help to devise win-win policy strategies that strengthen women’s agency and

promote economic growth at the same time, yet the relationship is complex. Considerable debate

has emerged regarding both the direction of causality and the distributional consequences.

Economic development can empower women and reduce gender inequality in health, schooling,

labor-market outcomes, rights, and political voice, just as shrinking gender gaps in these

measures of well-being can contribute to economic development (Duflo 2012). Theoretically,

rising income levels can narrow gender inequality through such channels as the demise of

traditional structures that reinforce human capital differences between men and women, the

increase in opportunity cost of women’s time outside of the labor force, the strengthening of

women’s economic and property rights, and the introduction of labor-saving consumer durables

that technological progress embodies.

Yet economic growth does not necessarily mean inequality will decline, especially if

unpaid work burdens, biased laws, differential access to resources, and social norms continue to

constrain women’s ability to take advantage of new opportunities. Gender differences in the

drivers of labor market opportunities play a crucial role in constraining women’s advancement in

the labor market and in achieving gender equality in the labor market (World Bank 2011;

Rodgers and Zveglich 2014). These drivers include household dynamics (especially women’s

27

relatively greater time burdens in performing unpaid household work), formal institutions

(including land laws geared toward household heads who tend to be men), markets (particularly

unequal access to credit, agricultural inputs, and investments in human capital), and informal

institutions (such as employers’ misinformed attitudes toward women workers and social norms

that restrict women from engaging in market-based work). These drivers are reinforcing and can

generate persistent obstacles that limit women’s advancement in the labor market.

In the reverse direction, gender inequality can harm economic growth through a complex

set of channels including relatively poor health and educational attainment for women,

inefficient allocation of resources, suboptimal governance in business and governments, and

reduced aggregate productivity. Yet some aspects of gender inequality may well induce more

rapid economic growth especially in the short term when women’s concentration in low-paid

jobs helps to keep labor costs low and improves competitiveness in world markets. Given these

complexities, ultimately the question of how gender equality and development interact comes

down to the empirical evidence, and there has been a growing body of work that substantiates the

different arguments.

Growth affects gender inequality

A number of studies have shown causal links between economic growth and gender

inequality, with inequality improving or worsening depending on the gendered indicator under

consideration. Evidence indicates that economic development reduces the disadvantages faced

by women, especially in educational attainment, life expectancy, and labor force participation

(World Bank 2011, Duflo 2012). Economic development brings higher incomes and improved

service delivery which helps to close gender gaps in educational attainment, health outcomes,

28

and employment. In some countries, technological improvements work to women’s relative

advantage as the returns to cognitive skills rise relative to the returns to manual skills.

Economic growth has also provided opportunities for girls and women to embark on

education and labor market tracks from which they had previously been hindered by traditional

institutions. For example, low-caste girls in India have increased their enrollment in English

language schools, thus preparing them for a broader range of jobs in the global economy, while

traditional networks have still channeled low-caste boys into local language schools (Munshi and

Rosenzweig 2006).

In addition to providing new employment and educational opportunities, economic

growth can improve women’s well-being by reducing the amount of time devoted to unpaid

work. Economic growth is associated with greater public investment in infrastructure that saves

women time from collecting water and fuel, thus freeing up their time to engage in paid work or

other activities that improve their well-being and that of their children. For example, in South

Africa, the mass roll-out of electricity to rural areas caused women’s employment to rise by as

much as 9.5 percentage points while men’s employment did not change (Dinkelman 2011). And

in Morocco, while women’s employment did not change as a result of providing credit to

households to finance connections to piped water, households reported greater leisure time and

less stress and conflict over water-related issues (Devoto et al. 2012). Conclusions about

economic development freeing up women’s time hold not only for infrastructure, but also for

labor-saving appliances and devices. Development brings technological innovations that result in

the creation and dissemination of labor-saving machines. Historically, in the United States, the

availability of household appliances that reduced time devoted to household chores played an

29

important role in boosting women’s labor force participation in the past century (Greenwood et

al. 2005).

More generally, growth can improve multiple dimensions of women’s well-being.

Forsythe et al. (2000) found that economic growth from 1970 to 1992 led to improvements in

overall women’s status as measured by the United Nations Development Program’s Gender-

related Development Index. And in the area of economic rights, economic growth is strongly

associated with legal reforms that have brought women stronger rights in the area of family law,

reproductive health, protective legislation in the labor market, domestic violence, and ownership

of assets such as land. Women have gained these rights for a number of reasons, including

pressure from multinational agencies such as the International Labor Organization, increased

capacity of national governments to legislate and enforce women’s rights, and persistent

advocacy and organizing efforts by women’s rights groups around the world (Htun and Weldon

2012; World Bank 2011).

Yet economic growth may not be sufficient to improve gendered well-being in all its

dimensions. A case in point is technological change, a key driver of economic growth, which can

sometimes work to women’s disadvantage. Several studies have shown that in middle- and

higher-income economies, women have experienced displacement from low-paying jobs in

manufacturing industries that have begun to upgrade their technologies, reduce the size of their

workforce, and move production to lower-wage countries. In particular, Tejani and Milberg

(2016) find that in Southeast Asia and Latin America, the capital intensity of production is a

major determinant of the female employment share in manufacturing, even more so than export

growth. In particular, the technological condition of production has a negative effect on the

percent of workers in manufacturing who are female. The authors interpret this result as a shift in

30

labor demand away from women as a result of industrial upgrading. Looking at specific

countries, in the case of Mexico, technological upgrading and rising capital intensity of export-

oriented manufacturing has been linked to a relative decline in employment opportunities for

women (Fussell 2000). Even in lower-income countries, women can experience job displacement

when technological change makes traditional female jobs redundant and when women face

barriers to training for new jobs. For example, the adoption of new rice-husking equipment in

India’s food processing industry and new technologies in India’s textiles and garment industry

led to job losses for women (Jhabvala and Sinha 2002).

Without generation of employment opportunities that actually support decent livelihoods,

pursuing policy priorities such as increased access to child care services will be insufficient to

promote gender-equitable well-being. Employment generation left to the devices of the market in

a context of an ultra-competitive global environment, labor-displacing technological change, and

in some countries, austere macroeconomic policies, is likely to result in insufficient high quality

jobs. If successful, public action to improve the quality of labor may simply increase the

educated unemployed and erode the returns to skilled labor, which would be inconsistent with

efforts to close gender educational gaps and wage gaps. To achieve gender-equitable well-being,

it is necessary to view micro-oriented labor market interventions within a broader lens that

addresses structural economic changes and lingering problems caused by restrictive policies.

Gender inequality affects growth

In the reverse direction, gender inequality can also have a causal impact on economic

growth. A growing body of empirical evidence indicates that gender inequality can promote

certain macroeconomic aggregates when considering shorter-term effects, while gender

inequality serves as a drag on growth when considering longer-term effects.11

In particular,

31

gender inequality in wages and employment can actually stimulate export growth in the shorter

term. Since the 1970s, women’s jobs in highly competitive export industries (especially

garments, textiles, and electronics) have been important in generating foreign exchange, resulting

in an increasing feminization of foreign currency earnings in a number of countries (Seguino

2010). Reliance on women workers in labor-intensive, export-oriented manufacturing has

become a common pattern across high-growth economies as women’s share of manufacturing

employment rose during their export drives. While the concentration of women in export

manufacturing has received the most attention, even in agriculture, women’s seasonal or daily

wage labor on farms has proven critical to keeping costs low and export demand high.

In the longer term, gender inequality in education and employment can act as a drag on

development. Educational inequality can contribute to women’s unequal household bargaining

power which could potentially reallocate household spending away from children’s needs,

thereby reducing the quality of the future labor supply and long-run productivity growth.

Systematic differences in investments in girls’ and boys’ education can be inefficient due to

distortions in skill levels that channel men and women into gendered occupations. Social norms

can influence gender-specific educational choices, which in turn can result in a suboptimal

allocation of skills. These arguments are supported with cross-country evidence in Boschini

(2003) showing that the presence of gender stereotypes reduces skill acquisition, technological

change, and economic growth. Moreover, Klasen and Lamanna (2009) also found a substantial

negative effect of gender gaps on growth. Their analysis of 93 countries over a 40-year period

indicates that countries with wider gender differences in labor force participation rates grow

more slowly, with simulations showing lower growth in the Middle East, Northern Africa, and

South Asia due to this effect. Closely related, greater equality in education can help to boost

32

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) by expanding the pool of skilled labor, which, in turn, boosts

economic growth (Busse and Nunnenkamp 2009).

Yet the empirical evidence is not conclusive and in a meta-analysis of studies that use

regression analysis of cross-country datasets, Bandiera and Natraj (2013) conclude that this body

of work cannot definitively demonstrate a causal link from gender inequality to economic

growth. This failure is mostly due to the difficulties inherent in this methodology in identifying

the direction of causality, the underlying mechanisms linking inequality and growth, and the

impact of legislative changes. Another criticism is that cross country regression analysis

implicitly assumes that the role of gender inequality is similar across countries, ignoring the role

of country-specific factors. These weaknesses can diminish the plausibility of claims that link

gender inequality to growth. Although most cross-country regression analyses include controls

for regional differences, the research strategy generally does not evaluate the effect of

differences in economic structure among countries.

Bandiera and Natraj (2013) favor more emphasis on microeconomic analyses, especially

those utilizing randomized-controlled trials and field experiments, to address these limitations in

the literature. This recommendation is effectively taken up by Duflo’s (2012) review of the

literature on women’s economic empowerment and economic growth which focuses primarily on

such microeconomic analyses. Duflo concludes that in the face of persistent biases about

women’s abilities and the lack of a clearly documented virtuous circle between women’s

empowerment and economic development, gender-equitable policies continue to be necessary to

actively promote equity in health, education, wages, employment, rights, and political voice.

VI. Conclusion

33

Although globalization has been seen primarily as a positive development, women

constitute the largest group who have not benefitted to the extent they might have. For many

developing countries, the emphasis on maintaining competitiveness in the world market has

meant staking a claim to the low-wage niche, resulting in downward pressure on women’s wages

and segregation into jobs characterized by insecurity and poor working conditions. At the micro

level, women’s labor market participation has risen without any relief from domestic obligations.

In order to facilitate more inclusive growth, these structural drivers of women’s employment call

for policy reforms that promote decent and productive employment opportunities, an overall

environment that supports their roles as income and care providers, and greater public investment

in infrastructure and social services.

Economic growth alone is not sufficient to lead to complete closure of gender gaps in

human capital, wages, rights, and voice; policy reforms are still required to ensure gender

equality. The rationale for such policy actions is clear: not only do they enhance equity, which is

an enormously important objective in and of itself, but they also contribute to overall economic

development. Of particular importance is a transformative approach that boosts the remunerative

value and security of women’s jobs, improves the compatibility of women’s market work with

child care, and promotes women’s economic empowerment so that women in the informal sector

become less marginalized and more integrated in the labor market. Policies that promote

economic empowerment include providing women with greater access to credit, strengthening

women’s property rights, improving the productivity of women farmers, promoting skills

development for women beyond gender stereotypes, and implementing gender-responsive social

protection measures. The bottom line of most of these reforms and programs is that more

effective targeting can work to reallocate constrained resources in socially optimal ways.

34

Bibliography

Aker, Jenny, Rachid Boumnijel, Amanda McClelland, and Niall Tierney. 2011. “Zap It to Me:

The Short-Term Impacts of a Mobile Cash Transfer Program,” Center for Global

Development Working Paper 268.

Ali, Daniel Ayalew, Klaus Deininger, and Markus Goldstein. 2014. “Environmental and Gender

Impacts of Land Tenure Regularization in Africa: Pilot Evidence from Rwanda,” Journal

of Development Economics 110: 262-275.

Attanasio, Orazio, Adriana Kugler, and Costas Meghir. 2011. “Subsidizing Vocational Training

for Disadvantaged Youth in Columbia: Evidence from a Randomized Trial,” American

Economic Journal: Applied Economics 3(3): 188-220.

Attanasio, Orazio, Vincenzo Di Maro, and Marcos Vera‐Hernández. 2013. “Community

Nurseries and the Nutritional Status of Poor Children. Evidence from Colombia,” The

Economic Journal 123 (571): 1025-1058.

Balakrishnan, Radhika (ed.). 2001. The Hidden Assembly Line: Gender Dynamics of

Subcontracted Work in a Global Economy. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.

Bandiera, Oriana and Ashwini Natraj. 2013. “Does Gender Inequality Hinder Development and

Economic Growth? Evidence and Policy Implications,” World Bank Research Observer

28 (1): 2–21.

Banerjee, Abhijit. 2013. “Microcredit Under the Microscope: What Have We Learned in the Past

Two Decades, and What Do We Need to Know?” Annual Review of Economics 5 (1):

487-519.

35

Banerjee, Abhijit, Esther Duflo, Rachel Glennerster, and Cynthia Kinnan. 2015. “The Miracle of

Microfinance? Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation,” American Economic Journal:

Applied Economics 7 (1): 22-53.

Barrientos, Stephanie, Naila Kabeer, and Naomi Hossain. 2004. “The Gender Dimensions of

Globalization of Production,” Working Paper No. 17. Geneva: International Labor

Organization.

Benería, Lourdes. 2007. “Gender and the Social Construction of Markets,” In Irene van Staveren,

Diane Elson, Caryn Grown, and Nilufer Çağatay (eds.), Feminist Economics of Trade.

London and New York: Routledge, pp. 13–32.

Berik, Günseli, and Yana Rodgers. 2012. “What's Macroeconomic Policy Got To Do with

Gender Inequality? Evidence from Asia,” Global Social Policy 12 (2): 183-189.

Berik, Günseli, and Yana Rodgers. 2010. “Options for Enforcing Labour Standards: Lessons

from Bangladesh and Cambodia,” Journal of International Development 22 (1): 56-85.

Berik, Günseli, Yana Rodgers, and Stephanie Seguino. 2009. “Feminist Economics of Inequality,

Development, and Growth,” Feminist Economics 15 (3): 1−33.

Berik, Günseli, Yana Rodgers, and Joseph Zveglich. 2004. “International Trade and Gender

Wage Discrimination: Evidence from East Asia,” Review of Development Economics 8

(2): 237−54.

Berniell, María Inés, and Carolina Sánchez-Páramo. 2011. “Overview of Time Use Data Used

for the Analysis of Gender Differences in Time Use Patterns,” Background Paper for the

World Development Report 2012. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Besley, Timothy, and Robin Burgess. 2003. “Halving Global Poverty,” Journal of Economic

Perspectives 17 (3), 3–22.

36

Bhaumik, Sumon. 2003. “Casualisation of the Workforce in India, 1983−2002,” Indian Journal

of Labour Economics 46 (4): 907−26.

Blau, Francine, Marianne Ferber, and Anne Winkler. 2013. The Economics of Women, Men and

Work. Pearson Higher Ed.

Blinder, Alan. 1973. “Wage Discrimination: Reduced Form and Structural Estimates,” Journal

of Human Resources 8 (4): 436-455.

Boschini, Anne. 2003. “The Impact of Gender Stereotypes on Economic Growth,” Department

of Economics, Stockholm University, Research Papers in Economics No. 2003:4.

Busse, Matthias, and Peter Nunnenkamp. 2009. “Gender Disparity in Education and the

International Competition for Foreign Direct Investment,” Feminist Economics 15 (3):

61−90.

Buvinić, Mayra, and Rebecca Furst-Nichols. 2016. “Promoting Women's Economic

Empowerment: What Works?" World Bank Research Observer 31 (1): 59-101.

Carr, Marilyn, Martha Chen, and Jane Tate. 2000. “Globalization and Home-Based Workers,”

Feminist Economics 6 (3): 123−42.

Coleman, Brett. 1999. “The Impact of Group Lending in Northeast Thailand,” Journal of

Development Economics 60 (1): 105–141.

Crépon, Bruno, Florencia Devoto, Esther Duflo, and William Parienté. 2015. “Estimating the

Impact of Microcredit on Those Who Take It Up: Evidence from a Randomized

Experiment in Morocco,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 7 (1): 123-

150.

de Aghion, Beatriz Armendariz, and Jonathan Morduch. 2005. The Economics of Microfinance.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

37

de Mel, Suresh, David McKenzie and Christopher Woodruff. 2008. “Returns to Capital in

Microenterprises: Evidence from a Field Experiment,” Quarterly Journal of Economics,

123 (4): 1329–1372.

de Mel, Suresh, David McKenzie and Christopher Woodruff. 2014. “Business Training and

Female Enterprise Start-Up, Growth, and Dynamics,” Journal of Development

Economics 106: 199-210.

Department for International Development, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and

International Development Research Centre (IDRC) Canada. 2013. “Growth and

Economic Opportunities for Women: Literature Review to Inform the DFID-IDRC-

Hewlett Foundation Research Program on Women's Economic Empowerment, Gender

Equality and Growth in Low Income Countries,” DFID Report.

Devoto, Florencia, Esther Duflo, Pascaline Dupas, William Pariente, and Vincent Pons. 2012.

“Happiness on Tap: Piped Water Adoption in Urban Morocco,” American Economic

Journal: Economic Policy 4 (4): 68–99.

Dinkelman, Taryn. 2011. “The Effects of Rural Electrification on Employment: New Evidence

from South Africa,” American Economic Review 101 (7): 3078–3108.

Duflo, Esther. 2012. “Women Empowerment and Economic Development,” Journal of

Economic Literature 50 (4): 1051-1079.

Fafchamps, Marcel, David McKenzie, Simon Quinn, and Christopher Woodruff. 2014.

“Microenterprise Growth and the Flypaper Effect: Evidence from a Randomized

Experiment in Ghana,” Journal of Development Economics 106: 211-226.

38

Ferrarini, Tommy, and Thor Norström. 2010. “Family Policy, Economic Development and Infant

Mortality: A Longitudinal Comparative Analysis,” International Journal of Social

Welfare 19 (S1): S89-S102.

Fontana, Marzia, and Luisa Natali. 2008. “Gendered Patterns of Time Use in Tanzania: Public

Investment in Infrastructure Can Help?” Paper prepared for the IFPRI Project on

Evaluating the Long-Term Impact of Gender-focused Policy Interventions. University of

Sussex, Brighton, UK.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2016. Gender and Land Rights Database. Rome:

FAO.

Forsythe, Nancy, Roberto Korzeniewicz, and Valerie Durrant. 2000. “Gender Inequalities and

Economic Growth: A Longitudinal Evaluation,” Economic Development and Cultural

Change 48 (3): 573−617.

Fussell, Elizabeth. 2000. “Making Labor Flexible: The Recomposition of Tijuana’s Maquiladora

Female Labor Force,” Feminist Economics 6 (3): 59–79.

Goldstein, Markus and Christopher Udry. 2008. “The Profits of Power: Land Rights and

Agricultural Investment in Ghana,” Journal of Political Economy 116 (6): 981-1022.

Glewwe, Paul and Michael Kremer. 2006. Handbook of the Economics of Education, Chapter 16,

Volume 2. Edited by Eric Hanushek and Finis Welch. Elsevier.

Greenwood, Jeremy, Ananth Seshadri, and Mehmet Yorukoglu. 2005. “Engines of Liberation,”

Review of Economic Studies 72 (1): 109–33.

Gries, Thomas and Wim Naudé. 2010. “Entrepreneurship and Structural Economic

Transformation,” Small Business Economics 34 (1): 13-29.

39

Htun, Mala. and S. Laurel Weldon. 2012. “The Civic Origins of Progressive Policy Change:

Combating Violence against Women in Global Perspective, 1975–2005,” American

Political Science Review 106 (3): 548–569.

Hudon, Marek, and Joakim Sandberg. 2013. “The Ethical Crisis in Microfinance: Issues,

Findings, and Implications,” Business Ethics Quarterly 23 (04): 561-589.

Islam, Asif, and Mohammad Amin. 2016. “Women Managers and The Gender-Based Gap in

Access to Education: Evidence from Firm-Level Data in Developing Countries,”

Feminist Economics 22 (3): 127-153.

Jhabvala, Renana, and Shalini Sinha. 2002. Liberalization and the Woman Worker. Ahmedabad,

India: Self Employed Women’s Association.

Juhn, Chinhui, Murphy, Kevin, and Brooks Pierce. 1993. “Wage Inequality and the Rise in

Returns to Skill,” Journal of Political Economy 101(3): 410-442.

Kabeer, Naila. 2004. “Globalization, Labor Standards, and Women’s Rights: Dilemmas of

Collective (In)action in an Interdependent World,” Feminist Economics 10 (1): 3−35.

Kaboski, Joseph, and Robert Townsend. 2005. “Policies and Impact: An Analysis of Village-

Level Microfinance Institutions,” Journal of the European Economic Association 3 (1):

1–50.

Karlan, Dean, and Jonathan Morduch. 2009. “Access to Finance: Credit Markets, Insurance, and

Saving,” in Dani Rodrik and Mark Rosenzweig (eds), Handbook of Development

Economics, Volume 5, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science & Technology, pp. 4703-4784.

Kevane, Michael, and Bruce Wydick. 2001. “Microenterprise Lending to Female Entrepreneurs:

Sacrificing Economic Growth for Poverty Alleviation?” World Development 29 (7):

1225–1236.

40

Klasen, Stephan, and Francesca Lamanna. 2009. “The Impact of Gender Inequality in Education

and Employment on Economic Growth: New Evidence for a Panel of Countries,”

Feminist Economics 15 (3): 91−132.

Kompaoré, Scholastique, Brenda Gael McSweeney, and Jennifer Hilda Frisanco. 2007. The

Quest for Gender Equality in Burkina Faso: Female Workloads, Education and

Empowerment. Geneva: UNESCO.

Lanjouw, Peter, and Rinku Murgai. 2009. “Poverty Decline, Agricultural Wages, and Nonfarm

Employment in Rural India: 1983–2004,” Agricultural Economics 40 (2): 243–263.

Lastarria-Cornhiel, Susan. 2006. “Feminization of Agriculture: Trends and Driving Forces,”

Background paper for the World Development Report, 2008. Washington DC: World

Bank.

Mammen, Kristin, and Christina Paxson. 2000. “Women’s Work and Economic Development,”

Journal of Economic Perspectives 14 (4): 141–64.

McKernan, Signe-Mary. 2002. “The Impact of Microcredit Programs on Self-Employment

Profits: Do Noncredit Program Aspects Matter?” The Review of Economics and Statistics

84 (1): 93–115.

Menon, Nidhiya, Yana Rodgers, and Alexis Kennedy. 2016. “Land Reform and Welfare in

Vietnam: Why Gender of the Land-Rights Holder Matters,” Journal of International

Development. DOI: 10.1002/jid.3203.

Menon, Nidhiya and Yana Rodgers. 2011. “How Access to Credit Affects Self-Employment:

Differences by Gender During India’s Rural Banking Reform,” Journal of Development

Studies 47 (1): 48–69.

41

Menon, Nidhiya, and Yana Rodgers. 2009. “International Trade and the Gender Wage Gap: New

Evidence from India’s Manufacturing Sector,” World Development 37 (5): 965−81.

Mishra, Khushbu, and Abdoul Sam. 2016. “Does Women’s Land Ownership Promote Their

Empowerment? Empirical Evidence from Nepal,” World Development 78: 360-371.

Munshi, Kaivan, and Mark Rosenzweig. 2006. “Traditional Institutions Meet the Modern World:

Caste, Gender, and Schooling Choice in a Globalizing Economy,” American Economic

Review 96 (4): 1225−52.

Oaxaca, Ronald 1973. “Male-Female Differentials in Urban Labor Markets,” International

Economic Review 14 (3): 693-709.

Pitt, Mark and Shahidur Khandker. 1998. “The Impact of Group-Based Credit Programs on Poor

Households in Bangladesh: Does the Gender of Participants Matter?” Journal of Political

Economy 106 (5): 958–996.

Porter, Maria. 2016. “Effects of Microcredit and Other Loans on Female Empowerment in

Bangladesh: The Borrower’s Gender Influences Intra‐Household Resource Allocation,”

Agricultural Economics 47 (2): 235-45.

Rodgers, Yana, and Nidhiya Menon. 2013. “Credit and Self-Employment,” in Deborah Figart

and Tonia Warnecke (eds.), Handbook of Research on Gender and Economic Life.

Northampton, MA, and London: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 359-377.

Rodgers, Yana, and Joseph Zveglich. 2014. “Inclusive Growth and Gender Inequality in Asia's

Labor Markets,” in Ravi Kanbur, Changyong Rhee, and Juzhong Zhuang (eds.),

Inequality in Asia and the Pacific: Trends, Drivers, and Policy Implications. Manila,

London, and New York: Asian Development Bank and Routledge Press: 103-133.

42

Roy, Shalini, Jinnat Ara, Narayan Das, and Agnes R. Quisumbing. 2015. “‘Flypaper effects’ in

Transfers Targeted to Women: Evidence from BRAC's ‘Targeting the Ultra Poor’

Program in Bangladesh,” Journal of Development Economics 117: 1-19.

Scarlato, Margherita, Giorgio d'Agostino, and Francesca Capparucci. 2016. “Evaluating CCTs

from a Gender Perspective: The Impact of Chile Solidario on Women's Employment

Prospect,” Journal of International Development 28 (2): 177-97.

Seguino, Stephanie. 2010. “Gender, Distribution, and Balance of Payments Constrained Growth

in Developing Countries,” Review of Political Economy 22 (3): 373−404.

Singh, Ajit, and Ann Zammit. 2004. “Labour Standards and the ‘Race to the Bottom’:

Rethinking Globalization and Workers' Rights from Developmental and Solidaristic

Perspectives,” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 20 (1): 85-104.

State of Food and Agriculture (SOFA) Team, and Cheryl Doss. 2011. “The Role of Women in

Agriculture,” ESA Working Paper No. 11-02. Rome: Food and Agriculture Association.

Tarozzi, Alessandro, Jaikishan Desai, and Kristin Johnson. 2015. “The Impacts of Microcredit:

Evidence from Ethiopia,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 7 (1): 54-89.

Tejani, Sheba, and William Milberg. 2016. “Global Defeminization? Industrial Upgrading and

Manufacturing Employment in Developing Countries,” Feminist Economics 22 (2): 24-

54.

Udry, Christopher. 1996. “Gender, Agricultural Production, and the Theory of the Household,”

Journal of Political Economy 104 (5): 1010-1046.

UN Women. 2015. Progress of the World’s Women 2015-2016: Transforming Economies,

Realizing Rights. New York: UN Women.

43

UN Women, United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment

Programme, and World Bank. 2015. The Cost of the Gender Gap in Agricultural

Productivity in Malawi, Tanzania, and Uganda. New York and Washington DC: UN

Women, UNDP, UNEP, and the World Bank Group.

UNESCO. 2002. Education for All: Is the World on Track? UNESCO Publishing, Paris.

World Bank. 2011. World Development Report 2012: Gender Equality and Development.

Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Bank. 2012. World Development Report 2013: Jobs. Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Bank. 2015. World Development Report 2016: Digital Dividends. Washington, DC:

World Bank.

Yun, Myeong-Su. 2009. “Wage Differentials, Discrimination and Inequality: A Cautionary Note

on the Juhn, Murphy and Pierce Decomposition Method,” Scottish Journal of Political

Economy 56(1): 114-122.

44

Figure 1. Male - Female Difference in Labor Force Participation Rates by Age Cohorts, 1990-2013

Note: MENA is Middle East and North Africa, SA is South Asia, LAC is Latin America and the Caribbean, CEECA is Central and

Eastern Europe and Central Asia, EAP is East Asia and the Pacific, Developed is developed economies, and SSA is Sub-Saharan

Africa. Countries in the regional groupings specified in UN Women (2015). All averages are weighted.

Source: UN Women (2015).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

801

5-2

4

25

-34

35

-54

55

-64

65

+

15

-24

25

-34

35

-54

55

-64

65

+

15

-24

25

-34

35

-54

55

-64

65

+

15

-24

25

-34

35

-54

55

-64

65

+

15

-24

25

-34

35

-54

55

-64

65

+

15

-24

25

-34

35

-54

55

-64

65

+

15

-24

25

-34

35

-54

55

-64

65

+

15

-24

25

-34

35

-54

55

-64

65

+

Per

cen

tage

Po

ints

1990 2013

MENA SA LAC CEECA EAP Developed SSA World

45

Figure 2. Percent Female in Wage and Nonwage Employment, 2013

Note: Data are for the most recent years available.

Source: World Bank (2012)

46

Figure 3. Distribution of Time Spent in Income, Investment and Other Activities by Gender, 2013

Note: Leisure and other activities involved in consumption such as shopping and social time is excluded, as is time spent in sleep.

Source: World Bank (2012)

47

Figure 4. Percent Female in Major Occupation Categories, 2013

Note: Weighted averages for 74 developing countries and 25 developed countries.

Source: UN Women (2015).

28

54 51

56

49

37

19

39

52

60

71

53

27

11

33

53 55

63

49

37

17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Managers Professionals Service workers Clerical workers Elementaryoccupations

Skilled agriculture andfishery jobs

Craft and tradeworkers

Per

cen

t

Developing regions Developed regions World Average

48

Endnotes

1 See Karlan and Morduch (2009) for more discussion.

2 See especially results in McKernan (2002), Kaboski and Townsend (2005), and Porter (2016).

3 See de Aghion and Morduch (2005) for more discussion of the background and prevalence of

microfinance programs.

4 For more discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of microfinance see Hudon and Sandberg

(2013) and Banerjee (2013).

5 This approach was first developed in Oaxaca (1973) and Blinder (1973).

6 For a review of the evidence on changes in gender wage gaps around the world, see Blau,

Ferber, and Winkler (2013).

7 See especially Balakrishnan (2001); Benería (2007); and Barrientos et al. (2004) for more

support of these arguments.

8 On the poor working conditions in developing countries and how they affect female workers,

see, for example, Singh and Zammit (2004) and Berik and Rodgers (2010).

9 Parental leave policies have similar terms, except that new fathers are also eligible to use the

benefits. In most countries, however, parental leave is predominantly taken up by women.

10 For cross-country evidence, see Ferrarini and Norström (2010).

11 This discussion on gender inequality and economic growth is based on a comprehensive

review in Berik et al. (2009).